'Creative Little Scientists' project: Mapping and comparative … · 2019-02-26 · Page 1 of 15...

of 15

'Creative Little Scientists' project: Mapping and comparative assessment of early years

science education policy and practice

Fani Stylianidou, [email protected], Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Dim. Panagea Str., GR-153 51 Pallini,

Greece

Esme Glauert, [email protected], UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London

WC1H 0AL, UK

Dimitris Rossis, [email protected], Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Dim. Panagea Str., GR-153 51

Pallini, Greece

Sari Havu-Nuutinen, [email protected], University of Eastern Finland, School of

Applied Education Science and Teacher Education, Tulliportinkatu 1, 80100 Joensuu,

Finland

Abstract

Creative Little Scientists was a 30-month (2011-2014) EU/FP7-funded research project

focusing on the synergies between early years science and mathematics education and the

development of children’s creativity, in response to increasing interest in these areas in

European educational policy. Using a variety of methods, including desk research, a teacher

survey and classroom-based fieldwork, the research provided insights into whether and how

children’s creativity is fostered and appropriate learning outcomes, including children’s

interest, emerge. Based on these the project proposed changes in policy and teacher education

encompassing curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

This paper focuses on results from the first research phase, where existing policies and

reported practices in early years science and mathematics education in the sample countries

were mapped and compared, by means of a) desk research examining national policies,

curricula and assessments; and b) a survey aiming to gain insights into teachers’

conceptualizations of their own practice. Findings across the varied contexts in partner

countries, indicate potential for inquiry and creativity, but also suggest a number of areas for

policy development and attention in early years teacher education,

Keywords: early years, science education, creativity, comparative study, policy

1. Introduction

Creative Little Scientists was a 30-month (2011-2014) EU funded comparative study working

across nine participating countries: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Malta,

Portugal, Romania and the UK. The Creative Little Scientists project sought to build a picture

of policy and practice in science and mathematics education for children aged 3-8 and their

potential to foster creativity and inquiry learning and teaching.

The project aimed to add to previous EU reports in science and mathematics education in its

focus on the nature of science and mathematics education in the early years and in seeking to

characterise and investigate opportunities for creativity in learning and teaching within the

specific contexts of science and mathematics. A significant strand of the project was also the

development of guidelines for policy and teacher education building on findings from the

different phases of the study and ongoing collaboration and dialogue with participants and

other stakeholders. The study aimed to mainstream good practices by proposing changes in

teacher education and classrooms encompassing curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

2. Background, Objectives and Framework

2.1 Core drivers for Creative Little Scientists

The project was informed by at least four key drivers that set the context for an increased

research focus on science and mathematics education and creativity in early years education:

The role of an economic imperative within education, demanding capable scientists and

creative thinkers in an increasingly knowledge-based globalised economy (European

mailto:[email protected]




of 15

Commission 2011), requiring capabilities such as reasoning skills, innovative thinking

and positive attitudes.

The role played by science, mathematics and creativity in the development of children

and of citizens, demanding early understanding and interaction with phenomena in nature

and technology, which empower students (and therefore future adults) to take part in

societal discussions and decision-making processes (Gago et al. 2004; Harlen 2008).

The role of early years education in building on children’s early experiences and in

promoting positive skills and dispositions (Sylva 2009), informed by increased awareness

of the child as an active and competent meaning-maker, who can take ownership of their

own learning and take part in decision making in matters that affect their lives in the

present (Goswami 2015).

The role of a digital or technological imperative within education, enabling but also

demanding the development of children’s capabilities in science, mathematics and

creativity (Wang et al. 2010).

2.2 Objectives for Creative Little Scientists

In the light of the above, the Creative Little Scientists project set the following objectives:

To define a clear and detailed Conceptual Framework comprising the issues at stake

and the parameters needed to be addressed in all stages of the research.

To map and comparatively assess existing approaches to science and mathematics

education in pre-school and first years of primary school (up to the pupil age of eight) in

the nine partner countries, highlighting instances of, or recording the absence of, practices

marrying science and mathematics learning, teaching and assessment with creativity.

To provide a deeper analysis of the implications of the mapped and compared

approaches, which would reveal the details of current practice and provide insights into

whether and how children’s creativity is fostered and the emergence of appropriate

learning outcomes in science and mathematics is achieved.

To propose a set of curriculum design principles as concrete guidelines for

European initial teacher training and continuous professional development

programmes, which would foster creativity-based approaches to science and

mathematics learning in preschool and the first years of primary education. The proposed

principles would be accompanied by illustrative teacher training materials aiming to

clarify their applicability in complex and varied European educational contexts, thus

facilitating implementation, evaluation and further development across Europe.

To exploit the results of the research at the European level as well as at national and

institutional level, making them easily available to educational policy makers and other

stakeholders, through the synthesis of all research outputs and their transformation into a

‘Final Report on Creativity and Science and Mathematics Education for Young Children’

(CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS 2014a) and also a ‘Set of Recommendations to

Policy Makers and Stakeholders’ (CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS 2014b).

2.3 Conceptual framework for Creative Little Scientists

The first of these objectives was achieved through extensive reviews of policy-related and

research-based literature at the beginning of the project covering areas as diverse as science

and mathematics education with a focus on pre-school and first years of primary school,

creativity in education, creativity as a lifelong skill, teaching and teacher training approaches,

as well as cognitive psychology and comparative education. The resulting Conceptual

Framework (CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS 2012) provided a strong theoretical

framework for the study. Two particular features of the Conceptual Framework played key

roles in fostering coherence and consistency in approach across the project and in themselves

have the potential to contribute to future work in the field, the definition of creativity in early

of 15

science and mathematics employed across the project and the synergies identified between

inquiry based and creative approaches to learning and teaching.

The definition of creativity in early science and mathematics developed from the Conceptual

Framework and subsequently refined through discussion with stakeholders is: Generating

ideas and strategies as an individual or community, reasoning critically between these and

producing plausible explanations and strategies consistent with the available evidence. This

needs to be understood alongside the ‘Little c creativity’ definition (Craft 2001) -“Purposive,

imaginative activity generating outcomes that are original and valuable in relation to the

learner” - insofar as this effort toward originality and value through imaginative activity

drives creativity in other domains including early science and mathematics.

The Conceptual Framework for Creative Little Scientists also explored synergies and

differences between inquiry-based (IBSE) and creative approaches (CA) to science and

mathematics. Although definitions of IBSE vary, there is considerable agreement

internationally, reflected in both policy and research, about the value of inquiry-based

approaches to science education (Minner et al. 2010). CA, on the other hand, does not refer to

a recognised set of approaches to education and learning, but nonetheless such approaches

have gained considerable attention in research and policy contexts in recent years (Chappell et

al. 2008). Both sets of approaches are pedagogically associated with a range of child-centred

philosophies from European and North American thinkers, which situate the child as an active

and curious thinker and meaning maker and highlight the role of experiential learning.

Common synergies are:

Play and exploration, recognising that playful experimentation/exploration is inherent in

all young children's activity, such exploration is at the core of IBSE and CA in the Early

Years (see e.g. Goswami 2015; Cremin et al. 2006; Poddiakov 2011).

Motivation and affect, highlighting the role of aesthetic engagement in promoting

children’s affective and emotional responses to science and mathematics activities (see

e.g. Craft et al. 2012b; Koballa and Glynn 2008).

Dialogue and collaboration, accepting that dialogic engagement is inherent in everyday

creativity in the classroom, plays a crucial role in learning in science and mathematics and

is a critical feature of IBSE and CA, enabling children to externalise, share and develop

their thinking (see e.g. John-Steiner 2000; Mercer and Littleton 2007).

Problem solving and agency, recognising that through scaffolding the learning

environment children can be provided with shared, meaningful, physical experiences and

opportunities to develop their creativity as well as their own questions and ideas about

scientifically relevant concepts (see e.g. Cindy et al. 2007; Craft et al. 2012a).

Questioning and curiosity, which is central to IBSE and CA, recognising across the three

domains of science, mathematics and creativity that creative teachers often employ open

ended questions, and promote speculation by modelling their own curiosity (see e.g.

Chappell et al. 2008).

Reflection and reasoning, emphasising the importance of metacognitive processes,

reflective awareness and deliberate control of cognitive activities, which may be still

developing in young children but which are incorporated into Early Years practice,

scientific and mathematical learning and IBSE (see e.g. Kuhn 1989; Bancroft et al. 2008).

Teacher scaffolding and involvement, which emphasises the importance of teachers

mediating the learning to meet the children’s needs, rather than feel pressured to meet a

given curriculum (see e.g. Rittle-Johnson and Koedinger 2005; Bonawitz et al. 2011).

Assessment for learning, emphasising the importance of formative assessment in

identifying and building on the skills attitudes, knowledge and understandings children

bring to school; supporting and encouraging children’s active engagement in learning and

of 15

fostering their awareness of their own thinking and progress (see e.g. Harrison and

Howard 2011; Feldhusen and Ban 1995).

3. Research approach and design

3.1 Research questions and approach for Creative Little Scientists

The project’s Conceptual Framework also developed the methodological framing of the study

and identified the following research foci:

RQ1. How are the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early

Years in the partner countries conceptualised by teachers and in policy? What role if any

does creativity play in these?

RQ2. What approaches are used in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and

mathematics in Early Years in the partner countries? What role if any does creativity play in

these?

RQ3. In what ways do these approaches seek to foster young children’s learning and

motivation in science and mathematics? How do teachers perceive their role in doing so?

RQ4. How can findings emerging from analysis in relation to questions 1-3 inform the

development of practice in the classroom and in teacher education (Initial Teacher Education

and Continuing Professional Development)?

These questions were examined in relation to three broad strands: Aims, purposes and

priorities; Teaching, learning and assessment; and Contextual factors, broken down into more

narrowly-defined dimensions drawing on the framework of curriculum components ‘the

vulnerable spider web’ (van den Akker, 2007), comprising key aspects of learning in schools:

Rationale or Vision; Aims and Objectives; Learning Activities; Pedagogy (or Teacher Role);

Assessment; Materials and Resources; Location; Grouping; Time; Content. These were

complemented by dimensions focusing on teachers' backgrounds, attitudes and education.

Within these dimensions a List of Factors was identified, drawing on the Conceptual

Framework, and encompassing key features and processes that had been found to be

associated with creativity in early science and mathematics (see Appendix 1). The curriculum

dimensions and associated List of Factors provided an essential common framework across

the different phases of research for capturing an in-depth empirical picture of

conceptualisations, practices and outcomes related to opportunities for creativity in early

science and mathematics across partner countries.

To meet the project’s objectives and research questions, mixed methods were employed,

combining quantitative approaches used in the surveys of policy and of teachers’ views,

alongside qualitative approaches employed in the case studies of classroom practice and

iterative processes associated with curriculum design research. It was recognized that policy

and practice needed to be interpreted within partners’ particular national contexts, especially

when making comparative judgments. As a result, all phases of research were reported in

separate National Reports. These were then synthesized to form overall Creative Little

Scientists project reports, available on the project’s website (www.creative-little-scientists.eu).

3.2 Comparative assessment of conceptualisations by teachers and in policy

This paper is concerned with presenting findings from the first stage of the research, focused

on the comparative assessment of how early years science and mathematics is conceptualised

by teachers and in policy in the nine partner countries, highlighting instances of, or recording

the absence of, practices marrying science and mathematics learning, teaching and assessment

with creativity. It thus addresses parts of RQ1 and RQ4 above. The research used the

methodology of comparative education employing the same methods of data collection and

analysis in making comparisons, drawing on data collected via two routes:

of 15

1. A desk survey of policy to examine how teaching, learning and assessment of science

and mathematics in the early years are conceptualised in 134 national policy documents,

including curricula, reports and assessments of school practice.

2. A teacher survey, which gathered data through a teacher questionnaire addressed to a

sample of 815 teachers from 605 schools (238 preschools and 367 primary schools)

across all partner countries, aimed towards gaining insights into practicing teachers’

conceptualisations of science, mathematics and creativity in early years education.

The planning of the two pieces of research commenced at the same time to achieve maximum

coherence between the studies. In addition, as research instrument, they both used a similar 4-

point Likert Scale questionnaire based on the curriculum components of Van den Akker

(2007) and on the creativity and inquiry approaches identified in the List of Factors. In the

case of the policy survey, the questionnaire aimed to assess the extent to which these

approaches were emphasised in policy documents and how far the role of creativity was

emphasised. In the case of the teacher survey, it aimed to assess the extent to and frequency

with which teachers use these approaches in their classrooms. Aligning the two surveys

facilitated subsequent comparison of their results.

3.3 Phases of data analysis

In the first phase, partners carried out separate analyses of their country’s policy and teacher

data to produce National Reports discussing the findings and situating them within their

country’s educational context.

Data gathered across partner countries for each survey were then amalgamated, grouping

questionnaire items according to the dimensions and approaches identified by the List of

Factors and analysed as a whole, using descriptive statistics. For example, frequency tables

presented teachers’ responses to questionnaire items as percentages, means and standard

deviations. Preschool and primary school data were considered separately. This produced an

overview of the current situation across the nine partner countries. Comparisons were made

between findings at the partner country level, as follows:

a. For the comparative analysis of policy conceptualisations, National Reports were drawn

upon to identify similarities and differences in approaches amongst national polices.

Comparisons of ratings for each questionnaire item indicated similarities and differences, and

justifications for the ratings and related commentary provided by the partners gave further

insights into such similarities and differences.

b. For the comparative analysis of teachers' conceptualisations statistical comparisons were

performed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel software to identify similarities and differences

between teachers’ responses across partner countries, in relation to the dimensions and

approaches identified by the List of Factors; information provided in the National Reports

was used to interpret these similarities and differences.

In the second phase, the policy survey findings were compared with the relevant findings

from the teacher survey with a view to revealing any similarities and differences between

policy and teachers’ conceptualisations of teaching, learning and assessment in early years

science and mathematics education, and the role of creativity in these. Again, this comparison

took place according to the pre-identified factors and dimensions, at two levels:

a. At a partner country level, using data from the National policy and teacher surveys.

b. At a European level, drawing on the overall findings from the policy and teacher surveys.

At the partner country level comparative tables were created for each item in the survey,

presenting the data from both surveys by country and school phase (preschool and school).

These permitted a quick identification of the core similarities and differences in policies and

practices within and between countries. Where these similarities and differences appeared

of 15

more significant radar charts were created to show policy and teacher ratings (means) for the

respective item, by school phase across countries. These charts allowed both a visual and a

more in-depth comparison of national findings.

The synthesis of comparisons, focused on the List of Factors and dimensions targeted in the

project, brought out issues and tensions in science and mathematics early years education,

most relevant to the role of inquiry-based approaches and the potential for creativity.

3.4 Methodological issues and challenges

From the outset language was a key challenge, common in comparative policy studies across

countries. Terms, such as ‘inquiry’ or ‘creativity’ did not translate easily between countries. It

was also important to recognise that even if terms appear comparable, they may differ in the

meaning attributed. Therefore, making comparisons by measuring the use, or absence, of

particular terms is problematic. Furthermore, educational policy or practice in a country may

embody much of what is signified by a word without using this word explicitly. This is highly

relevant for examining the term ‘creativity’, where its role may not be reflected by explicit

use of the term. It was therefore important to give attention to implicit as well as explicit

references to creativity drawing on definitions from the Conceptual Framework.

In relation to the policy survey another issue was to identify what was meant by national

policies. It was important first to clarify the different jurisdictions across the partnership.

Then given the wide range of policy documentation and varied degrees of regulation, partners

needed to make judgments about the documents that best captured curriculum, assessment

and pedagogy in early science and mathematics. This could include for example generic or

phase specific policies alongside subject specific documentation. Policy in a number of

countries was in transition and it was necessary to review previous or future policy documents

that would be in operation during fieldwork. Coding and rating the documents according to

the survey tool based on the List of Factors was also not straightforward, particularly in

relation to rating the emphasis on creativity. Here the Conceptual Framework and dialogue

between partners provided vital support. Partners were asked to provide policy references and

comments to support their ratings.

In relation to the teacher survey, motivating teachers to participate proved difficult in some

partner countries. Partners indicated a number of factors that might have contributed to this,

including the timing of the survey in the school term, attitudes to research participation,

pressures on teachers in particular policy contexts and the extent of partners’ networks and

previous contacts with schools.

4. Conceptualisations of the teaching, learning and assessment of science by

teachers and in policy: the role of creativity

This section provides an overview of key themes emerging from the comparison of research

findings from the policy and teacher surveys at the European level, presented under the main

strands and curriculum dimensions of the project. Specific results on which this overview is

based are included, only on an exemplary basis, given limitations of space.

4.1 Aims, purpose, priorities

4.1.1 Rationale for Early Years science and mathematics

Two common emphases were evident in the rationale for Early Years science education in

partner policies: the need to develop socially and environmentally aware citizens, and the

importance of fostering skills and dispositions to support future learning. In both instances,

links to creativity were identified implicitly in the need to promote skills of inquiry and

positive attitudes to science, in particular curiosity and critical evaluation. In only a small

minority of countries was the need to provide a foundational education for future scientists or

to develop more innovative thinkers prioritised in policy.

of 15

The results of the teacher survey showed that teachers across all partner countries largely

agreed with the two main emphases in the policy rationale provided for early years science

education. In addition, the view of science learning as an economic imperative was reflected

in very few policy documents and this view was mirrored in the teacher survey.

4.1.2 Curriculum Aims and Content

Science was represented in different ways within the curriculum: in some countries within a

broad area of learning such as ‘Knowledge of the World’ or ‘Study of the Environment’, in

others as a single subject. The aims, objectives, and content of the science curriculum in

partner countries emphasised the development of process skills associated with scientific

inquiry and of knowledge and understanding of science ideas (the latter particularly in

primary school). More limited attention was afforded to social and affective dimensions of

learning and few countries highlighted understandings related to the nature of science. A role

for creativity was most strongly indicated again implicitly in the focus on questioning and

investigating and the importance given to curiosity. In most countries a very limited role for

creativity was identified in relation to the development of science ideas.

In comparison, teachers reported pursuing most often affective and social dimensions of

learning. More limited attention was afforded to cognitive outcomes especially by preschool

teachers. In relation to aims related to inquiry-based science learning teachers fostered quite

or very frequently the development of children’s capabilities to carry out scientific inquiry,

such as to ask questions, gather and communicate findings, but to a lesser degree, children’s

abilities to plan and conduct simple investigations. Learning aims related to understandings

about scientific inquiry, were the least frequently pursued by teachers, though still quite high

compared to the limited emphasis put on understandings related to the nature of science in

policy (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1 Learning aims related to understandings about the nature of science: Results from

policy review and teachers responses (means), per partner country

Policy: 0: Not rated 1: Not mentioned 2: Single mention 3: Various mentions 4: Emphasised Survey: 1: Never 2: Rarely 3: Quite often 4: Very often

4.2 Approaches to teaching, learning and assessment

4.2.1 Learning Activities

In general, decisions about learning activities were made by teachers in the light of the

rationale, learning objectives and curriculum content specified for areas of learning in the

partner countries. Although some form of policy guidance about appropriate activities was

provided in all nine participating countries.

Partners’ commentaries in their National Reports for the teacher survey pointed to a common

emphasis on hands-on approaches and activities linked to children’s everyday lives. The

learning activities reported as used most commonly by teachers were predominantly linked to

eliciting children's curiosity in natural phenomena and allowing them opportunities to gather

evidence and ask questions. The National Reports from the policy survey, in common with

of 15

the teacher survey results, indicated an emphasis on hands-on approaches and activities linked

to children’s everyday lives. Observation and communication featured strongly in learning

activities recommended for both phases in almost all partner countries (see Fig. 4.2).

Questioning was also commonly mentioned in some countries, more particularly by teachers

in relation to preschool.

Fig. 4.2 Promoting observation in learning activities: Results from policy review and teachers

responses (means), per partner country


In the majority of countries, conducting investigations or projects and using simple equipment

were also included in guidance provided. There was more variation in relation to planning

investigations and using data to construct reasonable explanations. These activities featured

more strongly in early primary school policy.

4.2.2 Pedagogy

As mentioned above, there was a common emphasis in policy across partner countries on

hands-on approaches and activities linked to children’s everyday lives. In preschool in

particular providing a broad range of experience and making links across the curriculum was

widely recommended. There was a considerable focus on play and fostering autonomous

learning. Encouraging problem solving and children trying out their own ideas in

investigations were advocated in the majority of countries. Approaches given the least

attention included the use of drama, stories, history, field trips and everyday experiences as

contexts for learning. Moreover, in the aspects of inquiry discussed, most limited reference

was given to connecting explanations to scientific knowledge and reflection on inquiry

processes and learning. It is notable that in most countries limited references were made to

the role of imagination or the discussion of alternative ideas in policy (see Fig. 4.3) – also

linked with creative approaches to learning and teaching. Some differences were evident

between phases of early years education. In preschool, play was strongly emphasised and

greater attention was given to questioning and fostering autonomous learning. In primary

school greater importance was afforded to investigation and problem solving.

The results from the teacher survey suggested a consensus amongst teachers that the

teaching of science should build on children’s prior experiences and help relate science to

everyday life. Teachers consistently and uniformly across the partner countries reported

appreciation for all pedagogical contexts and approaches that promote dialogue and

collaboration in science amongst children, but did not recognise the potential of these

approaches for developing creativity. Furthermore, using drama or history to teach science, or

fostering children’s autonomy in learning were not practices very commonly used by teachers

across the partner countries, nor were they considered very ‘creativity enabling’ by them. It

of 15

should therefore be noted that although uniformly teachers strongly endorsed affective

learning outcomes in their teaching of science, the way they perceived the contexts and

approaches identified in the research literature as enhancing motivation and affect in children,

such as using drama or field trips, varied. The physical exploration of materials was

frequently promoted by the large majority of all teachers and considered as a creative practice.

Finally, all problem solving science contexts and approaches were thought of as amongst the

most ‘creativity enabling’ by a large number of teachers, who also reported using them quite

or very frequently.

Fig. 4.3 Fostering classroom discussion and evaluation of alternative ideas: Results from

policy review and teachers responses (means), per partner country


4.2.3 Assessment

Policy in relation to assessment showed the widest variation across partner countries.

Findings reflected the limited guidance for science assessment and inconsistencies in

emphasis across different elements in curriculum policy. There was very limited evidence in

policy of a role for creativity either in the priorities or methods for assessment advocated

across partner countries. Greatest emphasis was given to the assessment of science ideas.

Understandings and competencies in relation to scientific inquiry were emphasised in

assessment policy in a minority of countries and in only a few instances were attitudes a

priority for assessment in science. In general, guidance in relation to assessment methods was

limited, with little attention to multimodal forms of assessment or the involvement of children

in assessment processes often associated with creative approaches to learning and teaching.

According to the teacher survey, teachers prioritised the affective dimensions of learning in

science assessment in agreement with their declared rationale, vision, aims and objectives for

science education (see Fig. 4.4). In contrast with policy however, they did not consider the

assessment of scientific ideas and processes, or scientific inquiry in early years science

education as important.

of 15

Fig. 4.4 Assessment of positive attitudes to science: Results from policy review and teachers

responses (means), per partner country


4.3 Physical and social environment

In general, limited advice was given in policy in terms of the physical and social environment

for learning. Where advice on materials was provided, it mostly related to the provision of

equipment for inquiry and use of digital technologies. There was very little emphasis on a

budget for teaching or technical support for science. In terms of ways of grouping children for

learning, common themes included the recommendation of a variety of approaches to suit

particular tasks and learning needs and the benefits of collaborative learning.

According to teachers in the study preschools and early primary schools were well resourced

in computers and relevant library materials for science teaching, and in instructional

materials, computers and equipment and materials for hands-on exploration in the classroom

for mathematics teaching. Support personnel for teaching or for technical issues in both

science and mathematics was overall the least available resource in schools, though more

available in primary schools than in preschools.

Primary schools were overall better resourced than preschools in computers and technical

support personnel. Accordingly, primary teachers overall used computers and ICT resources

more frequently than preschool teachers, whereas preschool teachers overall used more

frequently relevant library materials and resources for hands-on exploration.

5. Discussion

5.1 Implications for policy development

5.1.1 Aims and content of the curriculum

The findings suggest that the aims and content of curricula for early years science and

mathematics could pay more explicit attention to social and affective dimensions of learning,

both also inextricably connected with cognitive dimensions. Greater recognition could also be

given to young children’s capabilities to engage with processes associated with the evaluation

as well as generation of ideas in science and mathematics, and with understandings related to

the nature of science.

5.1.2 Approaches to learning and teaching

Policy implications for learning and teaching approaches in early science and mathematics

were interlinked with recommendations concerning the aims and content of curricula.

Approaches involving play, practical exploration and investigation featured strongly in policy

across most partner countries. However, reflecting the need for attention to affective

dimensions in the aims and content of curricula, policy guidance and exemplification could

pay greater attention to the provision of varied contexts for science learning shown to promote

of 15

children’s motivation, interest and enjoyment in science and mathematics, such as drama,

stories, history projects, field trips and children’s everyday experiences.

Moreover, in seeking to foster opportunities for inquiry and a role for creativity, greater

recognition could be given in policy to the roles of imagination, reflection and consideration

of alternative ideas in supporting children’s understanding of scientific ideas and procedures.

Consideration of alternative ideas is also connected to social factors in learning and

opportunities for development of understandings associated with the nature of science. As

highlighted above, both these important dimensions of learning deserve greater attention.

5.1.3 Assessment

The findings highlight the need for a closer match between the aims and rationale for science

education and assessment priorities and approaches. For example while assessment of science

ideas was widely prioritised in policy, more limited attention was given to assessment of

inquiry processes and even less to social and affective dimensions of learning, although these

dimensions were often highlighted in the rationale and aims set out for early science and

mathematics education.

While the importance of formative assessment was increasingly recognised in policy, the

results indicate that further guidance would be valuable to support classroom practices in

assessment. Areas highlighted in particular include: examples of multimodal forms of

assessment to give young children opportunities to show best what they understand and can

do; ways of involving children in peer and self-assessment to support children’s reflection on

inquiry processes and outcomes and criteria to assess progression in learning, particularly in

relation to inquiry and the development of dispositions associated with creativity.

5.1.4 Role of creativity

Findings suggest that a more explicit and detailed focus in policy on the role of creativity in

early science and mathematics would be helpful. Where explicit references were made to

creativity in policy they were often in very general terms without provision of guidance about

what this might mean in the context of early science and mathematics. The review of policy

across partner countries identified implicit connections to creativity in policy for early years

science and mathematics, but these need to be drawn out and exemplified to support teachers

in translating policy priorities concerning creativity into specific classroom practices.

Furthermore, while certain teaching approaches were often signalled as associated with

creativity, such as problem solving and the use of digital technologies, there was often limited

indication of how such approaches might be used to foster creativity or inquiry in early

science and mathematics.

5.2 Implications for teacher professional development and future research

Findings overall, suggest a number of areas for attention in teacher education to support

inquiry and creativity in early years science and mathematics education. They include:

Perspectives on the nature of science and mathematics and the purposes of science and

mathematics education in the early years.

The explicit characteristics and roles of creativity in learning and teaching in early

science and mathematics.

Importance of both cognitive and affective learning outcomes in preschool science and

mathematics education.

The use of drama, stories, history and field trips as motivating contexts for learning.

Fostering children’s autonomy in learning.

Importance of evaluation of alternative ideas in science and mathematics learning as well

as of their generation.

of 15

Assessment strategies and forms of evidence that can be used to support learning and

teaching in early science and mathematics, the roles of peer and self-assessment.

Some of these areas also suggest additional implications for future research, since they are

related to factors that were not strongly represented in the data such as:

Opportunities for outdoor learning in the wider school environment

The potential of children’s use of ICT to enhance inquiry and creativity

Role of representation in varied modes in fostering young children’s reflection and

reasoning

Opportunities for exploring the nature of science with young children

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh

Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 289081.

We would also like to mention and thank the following researchers and their teams, who

contributed directly to the reported part of the research and were not co-authors of this paper:

Prof. Teresa Cremin, Prof. Anna Craft, Dr. Jim Clack, Dr. Andrew Manches, Dr. Ashley

Compton, Alison Riley, Dr. Hilde Van Houte, Prof. Annette Scheersoi, Prof. Manuel Filipe

Costa, Prof. Paulo Varela, Dr. Dan Sporea, Dr. Adelina Sporea, Dr. Olga Megalakaki, Prof.

Suzanne Gatt.

References

Bancroft, S., Fawcett, M. & Hay, P. (2008). Researching children researching the world.

London: Trentham Books.

Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E. & Schulz, L. (2011). The

double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery.

Cognition, 120(3), 322–330.

Chappell, K., Craft, A., Burnard, P., & Cremin, T. (2008). Question-posing and Question-

responding: the heart of ‘Possibility Thinking’ in the Early Years. Early Years, 28(3), 267-

286.

Cindy, E., Duncan, R. G. & Clark, A. C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-

based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark 2006. Educational

Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Craft, A. (2001). Little c Creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds), Creativity in

Education (pp. 45–61). London: Continuum.

Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., Dragovic, T., & Chappell, K. (2012a). Possibility thinking:

culminative studies of an evidence-based concept driving creativity? Education 3-13:

International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40, 1-19.

doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.656671

Craft, A., McConnon, L. & Matthews, A. (2012b). Creativity and child-initiated play:

fostering possibility thinking in four-year-olds. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 48-61.

CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS (2012) Conceptual Framework. D2.2. Lead Authors: A.

Craft, T. Cremin, J. Clack, A. Compton, J. Johnston, A. Riley. http://www.creative-little-

scientists.eu/content/deliverables. Accessed 29 December 2014.

CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS (2014a) Final Report on Creativity and Science and

Mathematics Education for Young Children. D6.5. Lead Authors: F. Stylianidou & D.

Rossis. http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu/content/deliverables. Accessed 29 December

2014.

CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS (2014b) Set of Recommendations to Policy Makers and

Stakeholders. D6.6. Lead Authors: D. Rossis & F. Stylianidou. http://www.creative-little-

scientists.eu/content/deliverables. Accessed 29 December 2014.

of 15

Cremin, T., Burnard, P. & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the Early

Years. Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108-119.

European Commission (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies practices and

research. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency EACEAE9

Eurydice.

Feldhusen, J. F. & Ban, G. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative

review of theory, research and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 231-247.

Gago, J. M., Ziman, J., Caro, P., Constantinou, C., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., et al. (2004).

Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report. Luxembourg:

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Goswami, U. (2015). Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning. York: Cambridge

Primary Review Trust.

Harlen, W. (2008). Science as a key component of the primary curriculum: a rationale with

policy implications. Wellcome: Perspectives on Education: Primary Science 1.

Harrison, C. & Howard, S. (2011). Issues in primary assessment: Assessment for learning;

how and why it works in primary classrooms. Primary Science, 116, 5-7.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

Koballa, T. J. & Glynn, S. M. (2008). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science

learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G, Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science

education (pp. 75-102). New York: Routledge.

Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4),

674-689.

Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A

sociocultural approach. London: Taylor and Francis.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it

and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.

Poddiakov, N. (2011). Searching, experimenting and the heuristic structure of a preschool

child's experience. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1), 55-63.

Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support

mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313-349.

Sylva, K. (2009). Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and

primary education project. London: Taylor and Francis.

van den Akker, J. (2007). Curriculum design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds), An

Introduction to Educational Design Research. Enschede: Axis Media-ontwerpers.

Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying Technology to Inquiry-

Based Learning in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5),

381-389.

of 15

Appendix 1: Dimensions, Sub Questions, Survey Questions and Factors

Dimensions

Sub questions

Factors important to nurturing creativity in early years science and

mathematics

Aim

s/p

urp

ose

/pri

ori

ties

Rationale or Vision

Why are they learning?

science economic imperative

creativity economic imperative

scientific literacy and numeracy for society and individual

technological imperative

science and mathematics education as context for development of

general skills and dispositions for learning

Aims and Objectives

Toward which goals are the

children learning?

Knowledge/understanding of science content

Understanding about scientific inquiry

Science process skills; IBSE specifically planned

Capabilities to carry out scientific inquiry or problem-based activities;

use of IBSE

Social factors of science learning; collaboration between children

valued

Affective factors of science learning; efforts to enhance children’s

attitudes in science and mathematics

Creative dispositions; creativity specifically planned

Tea

chin

g,

lea

rnin

g a

nd

ass

ess

men

t

Learning Activities

How are children learning?

Focus on cognitive dimension incl. nature of science

Questioning

Designing or planning investigations

Gathering evidence (observing)

Gathering evidence (using equipment)

Making connections

Focus on social dimension

Explaining evidence

Communicating explanations

Pedagogy

How is teacher facilitating

learning?

Role of play and exploration; role of play valued

Role of motivation and affect ; Efforts made to enhance children’s

attitudes in science and mathematics

Role of dialogue and collaboration; collab. between children valued

Role of problem solving and agency ; use of IBE/PBL, Children’s

agency encouraged

Fostering questioning and curiosity - Children’s questions encouraged

Diverse forms of expression valued

Fostering reflection and reasoning; children’s metacognition

encouraged

Teacher scaffolding, involvement, Sensitivity to when to guide/stand

back

Assessment

How is the teacher assessing

how far children’s learning has

progressed, and how does this

information inform planning

and develop practice?

Assessment function/purpose

Formative

Summative

Recipient of assessment results

Assessment way/process

Strategy

Forms of evidence ; excellent assessment of process +product, Diverse

forms of assessment valued

Locus of assessment judgment – involvement of children in peer/self

assessment

of 15

Dimensions

Sub questions

Factors important to nurturing creativity in early years science and

mathematics

Co

nte

xtu

al

fact

ors

(C

urr

icu

lum

)

Materials and Resources

With what are children

learning?

Rich physical environment for exploration; Use of physical resources

thoughtful; Valuing potential of physical materials;

Environment fosters creativity in sci/math

Sufficient space

Outdoor resources; recognition of out of school learning

Informal learning resources

ICT and digital technologies; confident use of digital technology

Variety of resources

Sufficient human resources

NO reliance on textbooks or published schemes

Location

Where are they learning?

Outdoors/indoors/both - recognition of out of school learning

Formal/non-formal/informal learning settings/

Small group settings

Grouping

With whom are they learning?

Multigrade teaching

Ability grouping

Small group settings

Number of children in class

Time

When are children learning?

Number of children in class

Sufficient time for learning science and mathematics

Content What are children learning?

Sci/ma as separate areas of knowledge or in broader grouping

Level of detail of curriculum content

Links with other subject areas / cross-curriculum approach; evidence

of science and maths integration (planned or incidental)

Subject-specific requirements vs. broad core curriculum

Content across key areas of knowledge

'Creative Little Scientists' project: Mapping and comparative … · 2019-02-26 · Page 1 of 15...

Documents

Transcript of 'Creative Little Scientists' project: Mapping and comparative … · 2019-02-26 · Page 1 of 15...